Haryana

Sonipat

19/2015

SMT. MANJEET W/O NARENDER - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR. DEVYANI PATIL - Opp.Party(s)

JOGINDER KUMAR

20 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                                     Complaint No.19 of 2015

Instituted on: 20.01.2015                    

Date of order: 18.11.2015

 

 

Smt. Manjeet wife of Narender r/o village Shadpur, Distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.          Versus

1.Dr. Devyani Patil, Patil Nursing Home, Adarsh Nagar, Sonepat.

2.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 204R, Model Town, Atlas road, Sonepat through its Managing Director.

                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Shri Joginder Kuhar, Adv. for complainant.

           Shri Krishan Bhardwaj Advocate for respondent no.1.            Shri RP Antil Adv. for respondent no.2.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

          Prabha Wati-Member.

           D.V. Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that she was admitted in the nursing home of respondent no.1 and was operated by respondent no.1 for tubectomy on 18.11.2013 and a certificate dated 18.11.2013 has also been issued in this regard to the complainant and it was assured that the operation has been successful.  But in the month of 10/2014, the complainant due to some doubt got tested her pregnancy in Bharat Hospital, Kharkhoda and she was shocked that the test was found positive.  The complainant immediately approached the respondent, but the complainant to threatened to keep mum.  Thereafter the abortion was done at General Hospital, Sonepat.  The complainant requested the respondent to pay back the amount spent by her and to compensate her for unnecessary mental agony and harassment, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondent no.1 and 2 appeared and they filed their separate written statement.

         The respondent no.1 in her written statement has submitted that the complainant was informed of such limitations of surgery prior to her signing the consent form.  The history of multiple abortions in her had inherently increased the chances of failure further.  When the surgery was performed after her valid consent, the left side tube was found stuck in the adhensions.  Only a small segment of the same could be excised with difficulty.  The right side tubectomy was done satisfactorily.  The complainant and her husband were duly informed about it and had been cautioned about the chances of failure of sterilization.   The complainant has filed a complaint to Civil Surgeon and an enquiry officer was appointed who enquired into the matter and examined the medical records and statement of both thev parties.  The enquiry officer found no evidence of medical negligence or any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.    As part of the Govt. Sterilization scheme, the patient was awarded Rs.30,000/- towards failure of tubectomy as per norms. The complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint against the respondent no.1 and she is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

         The respondent no.2 has filed their detailed reply on the basis of the reply filed by respondent no.1.

3.       We have heard the arguments advanced by  the learned counsel for the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.  

         Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondent no.1 doctor is liable to compensate the complainant as the tubectomy operation conducted by the respondent no.1 on 18.11.2013 was failed and in the month of 10/2014, the complainant’s pregnancy test was found positive.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the complainant was informed of such limitations of surgery prior to her signing the consent form.  The history of multiple abortions in her had inherently increased the chances of failure further.  When the surgery was performed after her valid consent, the left side tube was found stuck in the adhensions.  Only a small segment of the same could be excised with difficulty.  The right side tubectomy was done satisfactorily.  The complainant and her husband were duly informed about it and had been cautioned about the chances of failure of sterilization.   The complainant has filed a complaint to Civil Surgeon and an enquiry officer was appointed who enquired into the matter and examined the medical records and statement of both thev parties.  The enquiry officer found no evidence of medical negligence or any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.    As part of the Govt. Sterilization scheme, the patient was awarded Rs.30,000/- towards failure of tubectomy as per norms. The complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint against the respondent no.1 and she is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

         In the present case, report of Dr RK Kataria, Dy. Civil Surgeon, Sonepat is available on the case file.  It is mentioned in the enquiry report that the respondent doctor has written operative notes and also has given the remarks that the patient has been informed regarding the findings of the operation. However she did not obtained the signature of the patient or her attendant on neither on this card or on the indoor file of the patient.

         So, the plea of the respondent no.1 that the complainant was informed of such limitations of surgery prior to her signing the consent form, is not tenable in the eyes of law as the respondent no.1 has not got signed the consent form from the complainant or her husband and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1. 

         The complainant in her complaint has claimed total Rs.6 lacs as compensation from the respondent. But in our view, the above said amount is on a very higher side, excessive and exorbitant one.  In our view, Rs.20,000/- (Rs.twenty thousand) would be an adequate compensation to be granted to the complainant from the respondents.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/-(Rs.twenty thousand) for rendering deficient services, for unnecessary harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

         Since the respondent no.1 doctor has taken the insurance policy from the respondent no.2, the respondent no.2 insurance company is directed to pay the above said amount of compensation to the complainant on behalf of the respondent no.1.  As far as any other amount is concerned, the complainant can claim the same from the Haryana Government.       

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copy of this order he provided to both the parties free of cost.

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati) (DV Rathi)            (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF, Member, DCDRF           President, DCDRF

Sonepat.      Sonepat.                Sonepat.

 

Announced 18.11.2015